[CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 12:20 PM Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <
Hadia at tra.gov.eg wrote:

> Hi Seun,
>
>
> First apologies because I am reading and responding to the emails while
> being at a session at the ME DNS Forum in Dubai, therefore the emails do
> not have my full attention. So you are saying that GAC is not saying that
> it is optional for the registrars.  So they are saying that it is optional
> for the registrants,


SO: Exactly so there is no inconsistency in their statement. They were
simply saying that the current language makes it optional to registrants
but they prefer it not to be optional.

Enjoy the event and regards to everyone.

Regards

well yes this was always the case not all registrants have data to provide
> to the organization field and there is nothing wrong with that.
>
>
> Hadia
>
> ________________________________
> From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Sent: 20 February 2019 12:52
> To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi
> Cc: Alan Greenberg; CPWG
> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
>
> Hello Haidia,
>
> I think it's a matter of semantics, the first paragraph of the GAC
> statement under recommendation 5,7 where "...making collections optional
> for registrars...." was mentioned refers to the technical contacts. It is
> the second paragraph that refers to the organisation contact which was also
> rightly also stated.
>
> From my read, I don't think there is a misunderstanding in the
> interpretation of the report as reflected in the GAC statement.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 11:21 Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <
> Hadia at tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
> One comment the organization field is optional for the registrant but
> required for the registrar to offer, unlike the tech contact field
>
>
> Hadia
> ________________________________________
> From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces at icann.org>> on
> behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
> Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44
> To: CPWG
> Subject: [CPWG] Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
>
> Those following the EPDP will find this interesting.
>
> Alan
>
> >From: "Heineman, Ashley" <AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov<mailto:
> AHeineman at ntia.doc.gov>>
> >To: GNSO EPDP <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>>
> >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 00:54:20 +0000
> >Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] GAC statement to phase 1 final report
> >
> >Dear Kurt,
> >
> >Please find attached a statement for including in the phase 1 final
> >report from the GAC small group.  FWIW - this does NOT represent an
> >objection to the consensus calls or the report itself.
> >
> >Thanks kindly,
> >
> >Ashley Heineman
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org<mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190220/b086981a/attachment.html>